On Being Civil

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

On Being Civil

Postby Jon Estes » Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:29 am

Secretary Clinton recently stated...

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour."

Yet, isn't the reason her call for incivility is because she wants to destroy the political party that takes a different stand than she does and one that party cares about?

If so, then she is also calling on all conservatives to not be civil. She would have to support such action from the right simply because she supports such action... period.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:44 am

Sadly, I find that the incivility of both political parties reflects the poverty of reason in our society. We have ceased to be a people of reasoned discussion of issues. The day of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates or even the Carter-Ford Debates are long gone. Instead, we have a culture of 20 to 30 second character assassinations that have become the way to win elections. A perfect example is the character assassination going on in Virginia right now by Dave Brat, Republican Congressman in danger of losing his seat, who is maligning the character constantly of his opponent, a former CIA agent, blaming her with policies she was tasked to carry out as a way to imply she actually trained and favored terrorists, not that she worked in the "War on Terror." I don't blame good people for not running given that they will be subjected to having their most treasured values maligned or will be called "Pocahontas" because they actually have distant Indian ancestors.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7280
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Jon Estes » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:27 am

Dave Roberts wrote:Sadly, I find that the incivility of both political parties reflects the poverty of reason in our society. We have ceased to be a people of reasoned discussion of issues. The day of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates or even the Carter-Ford Debates are long gone. Instead, we have a culture of 20 to 30 second character assassinations that have become the way to win elections. A perfect example is the character assassination going on in Virginia right now by Dave Brat, Republican Congressman in danger of losing his seat, who is maligning the character constantly of his opponent, a former CIA agent, blaming her with policies she was tasked to carry out as a way to imply she actually trained and favored terrorists, not that she worked in the "War on Terror." I don't blame good people for not running given that they will be subjected to having their most treasured values maligned or will be called "Pocahontas" because they actually have distant Indian ancestors.


It is fair to say both sides are uncivil. One side seeming to be much more aggressive at it. It is also correct to say that the DEMS are promoting it among the constituents on an extreme level. It makes me wonder who is going to get killed (thanking God Scalise lived) due to the rhetoric.

I am not a fan of Trumps character but it seems the DEMS are terrified that he is teaching them to play by different rules than they have in the past. Rules that are more like what the DEMS have been showing for much longer on a larger scale.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Sandy » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:20 am

Perhaps we can learn a little from the Prime Minister's question and answer time in the British Parliament which is broadcast on CSPAN. Prior to being critical of someone of the other side, the members of Parliament address their opposition as "the right honorable gentleman from...." or "with all due respect to the right honorable gentleman..." Then they are direct and to the point with their disagreement but never personally insulting or demeaning.

If you do a little bit of research into this particular issue, you'll find that a great deal of the "incivility" that has replaced political debate originated with Rush Limbaugh. Don't blame the Democrats for this, it was Limbaugh and the "dittoheads" that made the rules and defined the current level of incivility in politics. Limbaugh incites his listeners with name calling because it gets a reaction and picks up his ratings. Anyone who disagrees is labelled an imbecile by the man who originated such terms as "libtards and feminazis" along with other choice names for those who disagree with is position. His view is not that all opinions are equal in America, but that those who disagree with his perspective are not equal to those who do and don't deserve to have their view considered. He's also the originator of "tell a big enough lie long enough and a percentage of the people will decide it is true." The bigger the lie the better. He has openly stated that since conservative views are always right, there is nothing wrong with cheating to win, including being an advocate for voter suppression and manipulation. Limbaugh picked up on making a buck by fanning the flames of prejudice and ignorance and it has taken over.

If you look at the context of Hillary's statement, it is exactly this kind of attitude that she is addressing. I've never seen her, nor any Democrat or mainstream media for that matter, advocate to eliminate the other side completely or try to "destroy" them. Win elections, sure. Pass legislation that favors their view, sure. Destroy, no, that's been almost exclusively the domain of right wingers like Limbaugh and the train of wannabees that are trying to make a fortune off hatred like he does. And now we have Trump and his train of deplorables who opened the door to the haters like Steve Bannon and used them to get what he wanted. Clinton is not "calling for incivility", she is pointing out exactly what she faced from her opposition, hatred bent on her destruction.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: On Being Civil

Postby JE Pettibone » Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:43 am

Ed: Sandy, I would suggest that the late night show host on the three major networks have to at least share the responsibility.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:48 am

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Sandy » Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:47 am

JE Pettibone wrote:Ed: Sandy, I would suggest that the late night show host on the three major networks have to at least share the responsibility.


If you can share an example of the same sort of incivility that Rush crafted into his style, go ahead. I don't see that any of the late night hosts are nearly that bad. This is more of that "nah nah boo boo other side does it too" excuse.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Neil Heath » Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:30 pm

I agree with Sandy. It isn't done evenly by both "sides". Nor do I see Democrats doing the stuff I see from the GOP followers.

My own experience on FB shows many more hostile, angry, vindictive posts from my conservative friends than from my moderate ones. Many are not original with them, but are sound-bite sorts of memes that are re-posted. I spend a good bit of time blocking the people who created such negative stuff (not my friends, but the ones who create what they re-post). It must be in the hundreds by now. I am amazed that they keep finding more and more.

Today, however, a woman friend I usually disagree with posted an all-caps rant with four letter words about how she is sick of hearing about the people coming our way thru Mexico. She hasn't done that sort of thing before. I fear the hostility level is rising as the elections draw near.
Neil Heath
User avatar
Neil Heath
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:39 pm
Location: Macon, GA

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Jon Estes » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:30 am

Neil Heath wrote:I agree with Sandy. It isn't done evenly by both "sides". Nor do I see Democrats doing the stuff I see from the GOP followers.

Stuff such as... Interrupting a whole restaurant of people hoping to dine in peace because they have a spat over a conservative leader dining there?

My own experience on FB shows many more hostile, angry, vindictive posts from my conservative friends than from my moderate ones. Many are not original with them, but are sound-bite sorts of memes that are re-posted. I spend a good bit of time blocking the people who created such negative stuff (not my friends, but the ones who create what they re-post). It must be in the hundreds by now. I am amazed that they keep finding more and more.

So... FB memes (as stupid as they are) is what you see as hostile, angry, vindictive...? The shooter of Scalise is less hostile, angry, vindictive...? The call bt Maxine Waters for people to form a mob and make a scene is less hostile, angry, vindictive...? The ANTIFA crowds who show up in masks causing disturbances is less hostile, angry and vindictive than a FB meme?

I really do not get it.


Today, however, a woman friend I usually disagree with posted an all-caps rant with four letter words about how she is sick of hearing about the people coming our way thru Mexico. She hasn't done that sort of thing before. I fear the hostility level is rising as the elections draw near.

So, what would you do with the 7000 immigrants marching to the US border? I hate four letter vulgar words... see no need for them. Yet, I understand the not wanting the mobs to enter into the USA breaking the law.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:27 am

You have reminded me why I do not listen to Limbaugh, do not watch late-night TV, and seldom watch TV news.

By the way, there is one great difference between the British Parliament and our Congress. In the Parliament, the representatives are in their seats to hear their "esteemed colleagues." In our Congress, most of the speeches are made to the cameras of C-Span for the consumption of the folks at home. Outside of the paid personnel on the dias, there is no one else in the hall to be esteemed or offended. Our Congress does not debate, it makes political speeches to empty seats while the representatives and senators are manning fund-raising phone banks for their parties.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7280
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:32 am

Jon Estes wrote:Stuff such as... Interrupting a whole restaurant of people hoping to dine in peace because they have a spat over a conservative leader dining there?


If you think this is only happening to conservative leaders, guess again. There's been an organized effort on the part of a group of conservatives to disrupt the public outings of leading Democrats. Regardless of party, this is unacceptable behavior, but there's a conservative group associated with the alt-right that started showing up at the public appearances of leading Democrats two years ago. Regardless of party affiliation, that's unacceptable behavior.

Jon Estes wrote: So... FB memes (as stupid as they are) is what you see as hostile, angry, vindictive...? The shooter of Scalise is less hostile, angry, vindictive...? The call bt Maxine Waters for people to form a mob and make a scene is less hostile, angry, vindictive...? The ANTIFA crowds who show up in masks causing disturbances is less hostile, angry and vindictive than a FB meme?


The Scalise shooter is one guy, enabled by lax gun laws promoted by the NRA. Looking at his previous record, he shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun. Let's not mention all of the threats made against President Obama. Your interpretation of Water's statement is out of context. I don't see anyone on the left endorsing or approving of ANTIFA, but I see conservatives embrace all of the elements of the alt-right including the anarchist and overthrow the government advocates whose announced aim is to make all non-whites subservient to them. But tit-for-tat, nah nah boo boo other side does it too isn't the point here. The point here is that the biggest difference is the leadership of the left doesn't endorse or promote this sort of thing, while the leadership of the right embraces and encourages it, particularly the tweeter-in-chief.

Then there's this.
https://bipartisanreport.com/2018/10/23 ... president/

You have a president on a rally tour (falling short of attendance expectations) advocating for his followers to become disruptive mobs and cheering on physical violence against the numerous vocal dissenters in the midst, and one of his sycophants Ted Cruz inciting a crowd by calling for his opponent to be locked up (why? because he was losing the shrieks and cheers of the crowd and needed an off the cuff remark to get the cheers going again). So far, the only "lock ups" are the eight former Trump campaign officers.

That followed by bombs sent to the Clintons, Obamas and George Soros.

Go back to my original post on this. Political animosity has always been there, but Limbaugh turned it into a trade to make money.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Jon Estes » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:30 am

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:Stuff such as... Interrupting a whole restaurant of people hoping to dine in peace because they have a spat over a conservative leader dining there?


If you think this is only happening to conservative leaders, guess again. There's been an organized effort on the part of a group of conservatives to disrupt the public outings of leading Democrats. Regardless of party, this is unacceptable behavior, but there's a conservative group associated with the alt-right that started showing up at the public appearances of leading Democrats two years ago. Regardless of party affiliation, that's unacceptable behavior.

Please show me where a conservative wenta rage in a diner against a Dem leader and the customers had to be exposed to the stupidity.

Jon Estes wrote: So... FB memes (as stupid as they are) is what you see as hostile, angry, vindictive...? The shooter of Scalise is less hostile, angry, vindictive...? The call bt Maxine Waters for people to form a mob and make a scene is less hostile, angry, vindictive...? The ANTIFA crowds who show up in masks causing disturbances is less hostile, angry and vindictive than a FB meme?


The Scalise shooter is one guy, enabled by lax gun laws promoted by the NRA. Looking at his previous record, he shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun. Let's not mention all of the threats made against President Obama. Your interpretation of Water's statement is out of context. I don't see anyone on the left endorsing or approving of ANTIFA, but I see conservatives embrace all of the elements of the alt-right including the anarchist and overthrow the government advocates whose announced aim is to make all non-whites subservient to them. But tit-for-tat, nah nah boo boo other side does it too isn't the point here. The point here is that the biggest difference is the leadership of the left doesn't endorse or promote this sort of thing, while the leadership of the right embraces and encourages it, particularly the tweeter-in-chief.

SMH... especially the idiocy of the last sentence.

Then there's this.
https://bipartisanreport.com/2018/10/23 ... president/
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Neil Heath » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:33 am

Thanks, Sandy. Jon was correct on one point he made, however, when he said, "I really just don't get it."
Neil Heath
User avatar
Neil Heath
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:39 pm
Location: Macon, GA

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Sandy » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:47 am

Jon Estes wrote:SMH... especially the idiocy of the last sentence.


:-) . Trump embraces and encourages this stuff at his "rallies" and in his pics for advisors. He's embraced the whole militant alt-right and now has come out with a new term to describe himself, a "nationalist." Interesting choice of terms. If Barack Obama in particular had used a term with similar racial connotations, the right would have been all over it. Hypocrisy runs deep among conservatives.

Jon's just wasting good cyberspace as far as I'm concerned. Any conservative who continues to support Trump has abandoned the moral values that the GOP used to claim for itself when it used that position to lambaste Clinton for his behavior. The failure of any conservative to support the full impeachment and removal of Trump on the same moral grounds is simply hypocrisy.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:51 pm

Yesterday and today, we are seeing where the incivility leads as bombs have been intercepted on their way to George Soros, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Words are deadly enough, but now incivility has risen to attempted maiming or murder. I also heard that white nationalist materials were in one of the bomb packages.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7280
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Haruo » Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:01 pm

Thought I read something about Maxine Waters and a past CIA Director (name evades me) too; or were those less recent? And that one package was misdelivered to its return address, and another was intercepted before delivery, in the House mailroom.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12246
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Haruo » Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:02 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:I also heard that white nationalist materials were in one of the bomb packages.

I heard one or more also contained a packet of white powder (which I suppose could be "nationalist materials").
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12246
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Haruo » Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:06 pm

And lest we miss the log in our own eye, there is at least one GOP congressman who's walking wounded after a "Dem" shot up a ball game.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12246
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Jon Estes » Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:42 pm

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:SMH... especially the idiocy of the last sentence.


:-) . Trump embraces and encourages this stuff at his "rallies" and in his pics for advisors. He's embraced the whole militant alt-right and now has come out with a new term to describe himself, a "nationalist." Interesting choice of terms. If Barack Obama in particular had used a term with similar racial connotations, the right would have been all over it. Hypocrisy runs deep among conservatives.

Jon's just wasting good cyberspace as far as I'm concerned. Any conservative who continues to support Trump has abandoned the moral values that the GOP used to claim for itself when it used that position to lambaste Clinton for his behavior. The failure of any conservative to support the full impeachment and removal of Trump on the same moral grounds is simply hypocrisy.


Now you are getting plain silly.

Before Trump was even on the scene, the rhetoric was already beyond civil.

That you think I misinterpreted MW’s is denial of facts. Please interpret her words...

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up,” Waters told a crowd in California over the weekend. “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Joseph Patrick » Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:04 am

From Gerry Milligan...Jon, you asked: "So, what would you do with the 7000 immigrants marching to the US border? I hate four letter vulgar words... see no need for them. Yet, I understand the not wanting the mobs to enter into the USA breaking the law." So, first, what did Jesus teach about strangers; second, with a population of 350,000,000 in the USA, how much would 7,000 affect the USA? And lastly, what about amnesty seekers? I truly think that the president is fear mongering. Our red-neck friends do not want 7,000 (or even 7 if truth be told) more brown skins into the USA because very soon WASPs will no longed have a majority of the electorate. Personally, I am not afraid of 7,000 more people in the USA. They work, pay taxes and add to the economy.
Joseph Patrick
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:53 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Jon Estes » Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:02 am

Joseph Patrick wrote:From Gerry Milligan...Jon, you asked: "So, what would you do with the 7000 immigrants marching to the US border? I hate four letter vulgar words... see no need for them. Yet, I understand the not wanting the mobs to enter into the USA breaking the law."

So, first, what did Jesus teach about strangers;

You tell me and then tell me who just gets to march to the gates of heaven and get entrance? Which strangers will the Savior let in?

Also, tell me what you would do if you were sitting in your home and a group of strangers just walked in... told you they were going to make your home, their home? I think it is safe to say you lock your doors at night to keep strangers out. I think it is also safe to say, you would cvall the police and have them arrested.

Now, what did Jesus teach about strangers?


second, with a population of 350,000,000 in the USA, how much would 7,000 affect the USA?

The second group has already formed. if this way of getting into the country works, the groups will not stop.

And lastly, what about amnesty seekers?

Is this the way to apply for amnesty? Do these people and the crowds to follow have what is necessary to be granted amnesty?

https://www.uscitizenship.info/articles/immigration-amnesty/


I truly think that the president is fear mongering. Our red-neck friends do not want 7,000 (or even 7 if truth be told) more brown skins into the USA because very soon WASPs will no longed have a majority of the electorate. Personally, I am not afraid of 7,000 more people in the USA. They work, pay taxes and add to the economy.

Are you saying I am a redneck because I oppose the 7000 or 7 from entering illegally?

I'm not afraid of them either but they must do it right or not do it at all. The way they are doing it - and the crowd following are not doing it right?

How many persons of danger to the USA who can be in the crowd (which DHS has already said are present) are too many?
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Sandy » Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:28 am

Jon Estes wrote:That you think I misinterpreted MW’s is denial of facts. Please interpret her words...


Fake news.

Jon Estes wrote: Before Trump was even on the scene, the rhetoric was already beyond civil.


Yes it was, as I pointed out, Rush Limbaugh took it to a whole new level, moving beyond discussion and discourse in disagreement to attacking character, name calling and promoting the idea that you are second class and don't deserve to be heard if your opinion differs from his when it comes to what is best for this country. Trump has just magnified it with his twitter finger. They're both con men.

As far as the caravan goes, there is plenty of room in the US immigration quotas from Central American countries to admit the entire group without much fuss. And the conservative right wing propaganda are just magnifying Trump's ignorance and lies about it. Well, stoking fear and ignorance is the conservative way to campaign, that and blaming everything on the mainstream media but offering not a jot or tittle of proof.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/worl ... -news.html

Jon Estes wrote:How many persons of danger to the USA who can be in the crowd (which DHS has already said are present) are too many?


At the moment, no one knows, though if the percentages of such in this group are similar to others, the crime rate and the number of "persons of danger" will be substantially fewer than that which already exists among the native born American citizen population of one of the medium sized border towns where they might cross. We have ways of determining this and preventing those persons from entering, have had for a long time and will continue to have. That's just more stoking of ignorance and fear.

Someone on this side of the border is mailing bombs as their contribution to the incivility. That is a lot more dangerous than a caravan of refugees from gang violence and extreme poverty that was mostly created by American foreign policy.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Joseph Patrick » Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:20 pm

Jon Estes wrote:
Joseph Patrick wrote:From Gerry Milligan...Jon, you asked: "So, what would you do with the 7000 immigrants marching to the US border? I hate four letter vulgar words... see no need for them. Yet, I understand the not wanting the mobs to enter into the USA breaking the law."
From Gerry Milligan, Jon I will respond to your comments immediately after said comment
So, first, what did Jesus teach about strangers;

You tell me and then tell me who just gets to march to the gates of heaven and get entrance? Which strangers will the Savior let in?
Hebrews 13:2 Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

Also, tell me what you would do if you were sitting in your home and a group of strangers just walked in... told you they were going to make your home, their home? I think it is safe to say you lock your doors at night to keep strangers out. I think it is also safe to say, you would cvall the police and have them arrested.
Am I in danger of this from one of the 7000 asylum seekers or a home grown METH-HEAD needing a fix?

Now, what did Jesus teach about strangers?
Hebrews 13:2 Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.


second, with a population of 350,000,000 in the USA, how much would 7,000 affect the USA?

The second group has already formed. if this way of getting into the country works, the groups will not stop.

And lastly, what about amnesty seekers?

Is this the way to apply for amnesty? Do these people and the crowds to follow have what is necessary to be granted amnesty?

https://www.uscitizenship.info/articles/immigration-amnesty/


I truly think that the president is fear mongering. Our red-neck friends do not want 7,000 (or even 7 if truth be told) more brown skins into the USA because very soon WASPs will no longed have a majority of the electorate. Personally, I am not afraid of 7,000 more people in the USA. They work, pay taxes and add to the economy.

Are you saying I am a redneck because I oppose the 7000 or 7 from entering illegally?
So you think that the 7000 asylum seekers in Southern Mexico will try to enter illegally? What evidence do you have of this? They could ALL be seeking asylum.
As to whether or not you are a red neck, I think that this is an extrapolation from this comment.

I'm not afraid of them either but they must do it right or not do it at all. The way they are doing it - and the crowd following are not doing it right?
Again, I ask, "What is your evidence?"

How many persons of danger to the USA who can be in the crowd (which DHS has already said are present) are too many?

Are these the same invisible Middle Easterners that the bone spur deferred person has made up?
Joseph Patrick
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 12:53 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Haruo » Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:25 pm

Surely Honduras qualifies as being in the Middle East. Ask any Salvadoran.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12246
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Jon Estes » Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:00 am

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:That you think I misinterpreted MW’s is denial of facts. Please interpret her words...


Fake news.

Jon Estes wrote: Before Trump was even on the scene, the rhetoric was already beyond civil.


Yes it was, as I pointed out, Rush Limbaugh took it to a whole new level, moving beyond discussion and discourse in disagreement to attacking character, name calling and promoting the idea that you are second class and don't deserve to be heard if your opinion differs from his when it comes to what is best for this country. Trump has just magnified it with his twitter finger. They're both con men.

As far as the caravan goes, there is plenty of room in the US immigration quotas from Central American countries to admit the entire group without much fuss. And the conservative right wing propaganda are just magnifying Trump's ignorance and lies about it. Well, stoking fear and ignorance is the conservative way to campaign, that and blaming everything on the mainstream media but offering not a jot or tittle of proof.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/worl ... -news.html

Jon Estes wrote:How many persons of danger to the USA who can be in the crowd (which DHS has already said are present) are too many?


At the moment, no one knows, though if the percentages of such in this group are similar to others, the crime rate and the number of "persons of danger" will be substantially fewer than that which already exists among the native born American citizen population of one of the medium sized border towns where they might cross. We have ways of determining this and preventing those persons from entering, have had for a long time and will continue to have. That's just more stoking of ignorance and fear.

How many bad people have to be in this group who have the propensity to kill Americans are too many?

Are you willing to take such a risk if it were your family who might be harmed?

We have enough evil people here in our country which causes us to lock our doors at night, do you not care that without proper vetting (if that is even possible in our system) happens we should not take the risk.


Someone on this side of the border is mailing bombs as their contribution to the incivility. That is a lot more dangerous than a caravan of refugees from gang violence and extreme poverty that was mostly created by American foreign policy.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 711
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:14 am

Re: On Being Civil

Postby Sandy » Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:29 am

Jon Estes wrote:How many bad people have to be in this group who have the propensity to kill Americans are too many? Are you willing to take such a risk if it were your family who might be harmed? We have enough evil people here in our country which causes us to lock our doors at night, do you not care that without proper vetting (if that is even possible in our system) happens we should not take the risk.


So then lets just close off all refugees and immigrants and cease to be the America that we have always been to the end of the world. You're going to stop a group of 7,000 refugees, who will line up and be considered for admission to the country individually when and if they all get here, because there may be a couple of "bad people" in the group who have the propensity to kill Americans? If this group is statistically similar to other Central American refugees--and there's no reason to believe they're not--then their main interest in coming here is to build a life and future, or work to take care of their family. You are in more danger from bad people on your hometown's main street, statistically, than you would be among a group of Central Americans, or among Syrian refugees for that matter.

Your last statement is just another example of the ignorance spread by Trump and by the extremist right wing media, that there won't be proper vetting of these people coming across the border, and that proper vetting is not possible. I can introduce you to a couple of Syrian families in our former church who will tell you exactly how restrictive and pernicious the vetting process was for them to get into this country on a claim of political asylum. The extremist right wing media occasionally drags up a highly publicized example of some immigrant refugee doing something illegal, or perhaps even killing someone, but the examples are so few and far between, and they have to keep pointing to the same ones, that their very reporting of these incidents undermines the credibility of this entire argument.

I live in a neighborhood, in a high rise, in which the majority of the population is made up of immigrants, many of whom came to this country as refugees from poverty or political oppression. There are just three of us on our end of the hall, out of eight condo units, who are Caucasian, native born American citizens. My next door neighbor on the right came to the US as a refugee from the civil war in Rwanda several years back. On our left is a couple who fled the civil war in El Salvador and whom it took 18 months to navigate the immigration "vetting." Across the hall is a Filipino widow. Next to her, a Greek couple who are Orthodox and left Syria as the civil war was breaking out. And at the end of the hall is a Ukrainian couple who used to live in Crimea and whom it also took 18 months just to get into the US. The most common language in the building and neighborhood is Polish, next to that Romanian, and next to that Spanish. Those are the people who you need to ask about the "system" we have in place for vetting immigrants and refugees. A third of my current school employees are on work permits and visas, and haven't yet received their citizenship. As far as safety goes, well, this is Chicago, and it's really nice to have a couple of grocery stores, a bank, a barber shop, a couple of drug stores, a dry cleaners and several eateries within a two or three block walk of the house. And in this neighborhood of immigrants from mixed backgrounds, (and I'm sure some illegal immigrants because this is a sanctuary city) I feel safe enough to take the dog on walks at night, and to walk everywhere I go.

Our immigration policy since the isolationists influenced it after WW1 has been overly restrictive and pernicious and I can point you to people who came here fleeing for their lives who will tell you so. We are the world's hope and we need to make sure that our reputation is not damaged by an insane, money grubbing, ***** grabbing, profiteering, orange headed, adulterous, buffoon, con man president.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8854
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Next

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests